David Frum Does Not Speak for Me Any More Than Rush Limbaugh Does

posted at 7:00 am on March 8, 2009 by Patterico

I recently risked being labeled one of the “oddballs” at Hot Air when I said that, while I believe Rush Limbaugh is a very talented salesman for conservative values, I think it would be counterproductive to set him up as the head of the conservative movement. As long as I’m carrying around “NOT IN MY NAME” placards, let me add another person who doesn’t speak for me: David Frum.

Frum has a NEWSWEEK piece that expands on his recent comments about Rush Limbaugh. Even as Frum purports to set forth his conservative bonafides, he undermines them:

I supported the Iraq War and (although I feel kind of silly about it in retrospect) the impeachment of Bill Clinton.

I don’t see why a conservative would feel “silly” about having supported the impeachment of a man who committed perjury and obstruction of justice, and abused the power of his office to destroy the reputations of people whom he considered a political danger. Frum makes no argument why Clinton’s impeachment was wrong. Without that argument, his comment seems like an unnecessary concession to the liberal cocktail set — a way to get the “good people” to take his argument seriously.

Frum also repeats an offensive set of comments he made on his blog earlier this week — comments that I bashed as contradictory and unnecessarily insulting:

With his private plane and his cigars, his history of drug dependency and his personal bulk, not to mention his tangled marital history, Rush is a walking stereotype of self-indulgence—exactly the image that Barack Obama most wants to affix to our philosophy and our party.

In other words, Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot. Well, Mr. Frum, we already have one too many Al Frankens in politics. We don’t need another. Limbaugh’s bulk and private life have bupkis to do with his arguments, and you devalue the debate if you maintain that they are in any way relevant.

Here’s where Frum almost makes a good point, except that he phrases it in a hopelessly naive way:

Notice that Limbaugh did not say: “I hope the administration’s liberal plans fail.” Or (better): “I know the administration’s liberal plans will fail.” Or (best): “I fear that this administration’s liberal plans will fail, as liberal plans usually do.” If it had been phrased that way, nobody could have used Limbaugh’s words to misrepresent conservatives as clueless, indifferent or gleeful in the face of the most painful economic crisis in a generation. But then, if it had been phrased that way, nobody would have quoted his words at all—and as Limbaugh himself said, being “headlined” was the point of the exercise. If it had been phrased that way, Limbaugh’s face would not now be adorning the covers of magazines. He phrased his hope in a way that drew maximum attention to himself, offered maximum benefit to the administration and did maximum harm to the party he claims to support.

It’s crazy to say that “nobody could have used Limbaugh’s words to misrepresent conservatives . . .” Of course they could have, and of course they would have. They always do. That’s standard operating procedure for the media and leftists (but I repeat myself).

What Frum should have said is that phrasing the statement in the ways he suggests would have made it harder to distort Limbaugh’s meaning. Not impossible — just harder.

The problem with saying “I hope he fails” is that it’s open to so many interpretations. Reasonable people hearing “I hope he fails” might think Limbaugh hopes Obama’s policies, once enacted, will fail to save the economy. You think that’s a ridiculous interpretation? You may think you know what Limbaugh meant — but no matter what you think, there are conservatives equally certain that he meant something different.

I ran a poll on my site yesterday in which I said: of course no conservative wants Obama’s policies enacted. Of course Rush wants Obama to “fail” to enact them. But, assuming Obama’s policies are enacted anyway, do you interpret Rush to be saying that he wants the policies to 1) succeed, meaning the economy improves? or 2) fail, meaning socialism fails, allowing conservative principles to re-emerge?

The responses — primarily from conservative readers with no desire to misread Limbaugh’s words — were all over the map:

“It was #1, and no doubt about it.”

“Patterico, I think it is very clear that Mr. Limbaugh means #2”

“#1 obviously.”

Of course Limbaugh meant #2.”

If conservatives are this confused about Limbaugh’s message, then he didn’t express it clearly enough. And given the visibility of his CPAC speech, and the controversial nature of his remarks, he needed to be clear.

Some say: conservatives can’t worry about how they say things. They know their arguments will be distorted anyway, so they shouldn’t worry about being misinterpreted. I completely disagree with this argument. I say: when you know people will distort your meaning, you have to be extra careful to express yourself clearly.

Granted, there’s a tension between making your argument clear, and giving it punch. I understand and respect the view that if you word your statements in too lawyerly a fashion, with clarifications and caveats, you might sacrifice the forcefulness of your argument.

But you can be forceful and clear all at the same time. For example, Rush could have said: “It doesn’t matter what I hope for. I know he’ll fail.” That would have been just as effective and compelling — but possibly less controversial. And while the controversy generated by this uncertainty over Rush’s meaning has been good for his ratings, it’s doubtful that it has been good for conservatives.

What’s more, in his CPAC speech, he went out of his way to describe liberals as “deranged”:

I have learned how to tweak liberals everywhere. I do it instinctively now. Tweak them in the media. And no reason to be afraid of these people. Why in the world would you be afraid of the deranged?

Using the word “deranged” to describe liberals as a whole is just silly. It’s true of some of them. But not all of them. Calling liberals deranged may make you feel good, and it may make you laugh. But many of you consider Limbaugh to be the spokesman of the conservative movement — and if our spokesmen regularly say stuff like that, we’ll alienate voters. And then, we’ll get eight years of Obama and his crazy spending that is killing our children’s future.

When I choose leaders and spokesmen for my party and my political movement, I want clarity, vigor, integrity, perspective, and a lack of pettiness. In my view, David Frum — with his comments about Limbaugh’s bulk and personal life — showed pettiness. With his ambivalence about Clinton’s impeachment — not justified by any argument but made as an aside as if to curry favor with the elite — Frum lacks the integrity of a true conservative.

Rush has many of the above qualities — but when he calls liberals “deranged,” I think he lacks perspective. And when he said “I hope he fails,” I think he sacrificed clarity for controversy.

We can do better. Rush Limbaugh does not speak for me. And neither does David Frum.

UPDATE: At the same time, we can’t allow Democrats to seize the moral high ground on this. Here’s hard proof they didn’t want Bush to succeed.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Yes. I have been complaining, for a while, that everyone lets the idiot messiah get away with his “last 8 years” bullsh!t when the Dems had control for the last two. Maybe Rush needs to make a nice, direct statement about this so that it can become part of the public discussion, finally. Of course, Patterico and others would then blast Rush for being divisive, or not careful enough in his wording … and then accuse people like us, who have held this exact thought waiting for SOMEONE to say it, of being “cultish” and following Rush.

progressoverpeace on March 8, 2009 at 6:11 PM

this has been going on since Bush the elder and his ‘kindler gentler’ conservatism…its very orwellian, this rewriting of history…

exactly right!!!

yeah disagreeing with the new bi-racial messiah is divisive…soon it will be blasphemous…

right4life on March 8, 2009 at 6:14 PM

MadisonConservative on March 8, 2009 at 5:48 PM

This country remains a center right country. Historically we have always gone through political shifts. Republicans just held power for 12 years. Lot’s of reasons and causes have been debated regarding what exactly led to the removal of power from the GOP. Following 12 years of power, the tide was bound to shift once again no matter the obvious decline of leadership within the GOP. Best we can do right now is to slow down the march to Socialism by the Liberals in control of the Democrat party. The tide will shift back to the right in time, quicker than normal with this batch of losers in control. I mean, Nancy Pelosi is an absolute nutter, and Obama is proving to be the radical rookie nutter we all had predicted.

In the mean while, we need to slow down this march by Obama the narcissist. Having our own pundits get all petty and issue the political correct label on our own who are standing up and fighting the righteous fight is not productive. That’s putting it mildly and politically correct. We are also finding out who is on our side, and who is fighting us from within. Mistakes will be made, and some will be identified as the enemy within incorrectly. In the end, we will have a much needed house cleaning.

Keemo on March 8, 2009 at 6:20 PM

Interesting Fox News poll.
getalife on March 8, 2009 at 4:11 PM

Notice, class, how our simple college friend here immediately tries to cast doubt on this poll by citing who did it? This despite the fact that over the past decade and a half Faux News Polls have been just as accurate as other polls. In fact, Faux polls regularly gave Bill Clinton higher job approval numbers than Gallup did.

Unfortunately for the rabid Left, there is plenty of evidence besides this one poll. Do a Google search on these words:

Bush not my President

You get over 28 MILLION results. Including numerous “Bush Not My President” t-shirts in every size and color. But also all sorts of political commentary. Such as this one:

http://www.sonofbush.com/

Illegitimate President

George W. Bush is an illegitimate president. He stole the 2000 election using his brother Jeb to fix the Florida election. And then finally getting the Supreme Court to declare him the winner in an act of supreme treason. Bush is not the President of the United States. And since he seized power and took office – he has done everything in his power to undermine America and sell us out to his small circle of contributors. Bush is a criminal and needs to be stopped.

He’s not my president!

Del Dolemonte on March 8, 2009 at 6:20 PM

Core values:

1) What has worked in the past is likely to work in the future. What has failed in the past is likely to fail in the future. It follows that when innovation is suggested, similar situations and conditions in the past should be examined closely before such innovations are adopted wholesale.

2) Wealth is created. This should be obvious. A century ago there were roughly a billion people on the planet. Now it’s pushing seven times that, and on the average they are eating better than their predecessors. Where did the wealth come from? — it was created by human effort. It follows that the necessary conditions for wealth creation should be studied and supported as much as possible. At the top of that list is that people who create wealth should be allowed to dispose of it as they will. If you violate that principle, those otherwise inclined to create wealth will simply not do so.

3) Free speech is a necessary condition for a genuinely civilized society. “Sir, I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it” is fundamental.

4) There is an important, nay vital, distinction between “cooperative” and “communal”.

5) Any concept of “rights” must begin with a person alone in a forest. Work that one out for yourself.

Regards,
Ric

warlocketx on March 8, 2009 at 6:21 PM

Keemo on March 8, 2009 at 6:20 PM

warlocketx on March 8, 2009 at 6:21 PM

Well said guys. Well said.

Montana on March 8, 2009 at 6:24 PM

From powerline:

From the beginning of his administration, Barack Obama has been more popular, personally, than the policies he has sought to implement. It was inevitable that before long, voters’ doubts about Obama’s policies would erode his approval ratings. That process now seems to be underway.

After consistently scoring a 59 or 60 percent approval rating in the Rasmussen Survey for at least the last couple of weeks, Obama has begun to drop and has been at 56 percent approval for the last two days, with 43 percent now disapproving. “Strong” approvers now outnumber “strong” disapprovers 39 to 31 percent. So after only six weeks, 70 percent of the electorate already has strong feelings about our new President, pro or con.

From the beginning, I think the Democrats have overestimated both Obama’s personal popularity and the extent to which that popularity will cause voters to accept (or perhaps not to notice) otherwise unpalatable policies. The most basic evidence for that proposition is that polls do not show majority support (or, in most cases, even plurality support) for Obama’s major policy initiatives–the bailouts, trillion dollar plus deficits, and so on.

Keemo on March 8, 2009 at 6:27 PM

The most basic evidence for that proposition is that polls do not show majority support (or, in most cases, even plurality support) for Obama’s major policy initiatives–the bailouts, trillion dollar plus deficits, and so on.

Keemo on March 8, 2009 at 6:27 PM

Support for his policies are lacking because they are made of fail. Most people with common sense know wealth redistribution, deficits as far as the eye can see are bound to be a disaster. The more people who wake up from their hopeful sleep to realize Obama has nothing more up his sleeve the more his popularity will erode. The best thing that could happen to Obama at this point is to lose the House and Senate in 2010. He has a shot at being seen as a successful President only under those circumstances.

msmveritas on March 8, 2009 at 6:41 PM

msmveritas on March 8, 2009 at 6:41 PM

I’d say he has no shot at all. I believe the man is a narcissist to the core. Some day, Obama will be used as the example when describing a narcissist. When Obama see’s the country and the world shouting at him to remove himself from the office of potus, the man will break like a month old piece of bread.

In the mean while, I’m just hoping to have enough work to feed my family.

Keemo on March 8, 2009 at 6:45 PM

5) Any concept of “rights” must begin with a person alone in a forest. Work that one out for yourself.

Regards,
Ric
warlocketx on March 8, 2009 at 6:21 PM

Are you demonology or destruction?
lol
Core values:
In your hypothetical forest, how can ecomonic liberty be “good” but social liberty be “bad”?
Isn’t liberty always “good”?

strangelet on March 8, 2009 at 6:54 PM

I’d say he has no shot at all. I believe the man is a narcissist to the core. Some day, Obama will be used as the example when describing a narcissist.

I’ve had discussions about this with quite a few people. I see the situation as far worse than the idiot messiah just being a narcissist. The Precedent is motivated by REVENGE (social and economic “justice”). He doesn’t care about much, other than exacting his revenge on those he views as the enemies – whites (non-blacks, more generally), the rich, and Western civilization. He is willing to throw his own popularity down the tubes just so that he can make certain people, and a certain civilization, pay dearly. This is far more dangerous than a narcissist who will change his positions in order to garner love, or support (more as Bill Clinton was).

When Obama see’s the country and the world shouting at him to remove himself from the office of potus, the man will break like a month old piece of bread.

Keemo on March 8, 2009 at 6:45 PM

I think, very unfortunately, that this would just get the Precedent to speed up his insane plans and try to shove even more down our throats in a last ditch effort to really hurt us before he is removed from office.

progressoverpeace on March 8, 2009 at 7:00 PM

He has a shot at being seen as a successful President only under those circumstances.

msmveritas on March 8, 2009 at 6:41 PM

Unfortunately, failing policies don’t stop someone from succeeding. Lenin’s policies were all total failures, but he was very successful in determining the governance of the Soviet Union for the next many decades. Failed, and failing, policies can continue to exist for a long, long time.

progressoverpeace on March 8, 2009 at 7:02 PM

progressoverpeace on March 8, 2009 at 7:00 PM

Interesting points, I was just thinking whether it extends beyond narcissism too. Clinton was narcissistic enough to throw ideology out the window to save his rep as president. I don’t see Obama doing that, his ideology is much more ingrained. I think it is about revenge and justice, he will not give up readily. He already knew it was unpopular enough to lie about it during his campaign. Still it didn’t stop him from enacting it as quickly as he could upon taking office.

msmveritas on March 8, 2009 at 7:07 PM

msmveritas on March 8, 2009 at 7:07 PM

Exactly.

progressoverpeace on March 8, 2009 at 7:17 PM

I think these ongoing columns on Rush just give Obama the distraction he needs to function. Rush can handle this PR junk and double his ratings, which is obviously the case. But with people focused on this manufactured story… (hey, who manufactured it).

Between Obama’s recent ‘accomplishments’ and his numerous mistakes, we should be talking about England; Russia; Cuba; Syria; the admin tax evaders; Dawn Johnsen at OLC: Rahm’s role in the Blago mess; the omnipresent teleprompter which is now the whitehouse norm. On and on. I just think this dialogue helps him more than it helps the GOP. It’s been established what Rush said and its context, yet Obama plays fast and loose while we sit and watch the Constitution get shoved through a shredder. He’s working fast for a reason. His distractions are for a reason.

Vermont Neighbor on March 8, 2009 at 7:29 PM

Darleen on March 8, 2009 at 2:14 PM

I’d say the point is that you two are talking about different things, and that ratcheting up the horrificness in metaphors was becoming the currency of debate as opposed to actual argumentation.

You’re both talking about distinct political issues, your’s is one of framing and his is one of message discipline. These are not entirely mutually exclusive ends. If you’re surrendering the right to set the terms of the debate you’re almost guaranteed to lose, which I believe is the point you’re trying to make, and so focusing on how Rush should’ve worded the whole “I hope Obama fails” thing differently is ceding, in a sense, that the liberal argument that he wants Obama to fail at governing, and not at achieving the ends he’s stated which would lead to a failure in governing. I can understand and appreciate that, but it leaves out the message discipline aspect of politics. The reality is that most people catch very little about politics, and what they catch are the simple soundbites that paint vivid pictures about the individuals saying them (and the bodies they represent in the minds of the viewers), right or wrong that’s how it is. And so in politics you’ve gotta manage your message with this in mind, and Rush is most certainly a political figure (and he’s typically very skilled at message discipline). In saying in internal discussions that there were more productive ways of saying what he was trying to say (unless you define productivity in drawing attention on Rush) doesn’t cede that he meant what the liberals claim he meant, just that to someone who isn’t going to go read the transcript (which is probably 99% of people who don’t listen to Rush but heard the soundbite) it sounds like he meant what the liberals say he meant, and that the conservative movement would be better off if he would avoid saying things that sound like that. To go with your rape metaphor, if a good looking young woman got raped by wearing a short skirt around a prison yard, if she would like to avoid being raped again she’d do well to avoid wearing that skirt around the prison yard. It’s not saying it’s OK she got raped, or that she deserved to get raped, but that it wasn’t completely unforeseeable that she got raped and there are things she can do if she would like to avoid being raped again in the future. Rush knows the rules of the game, and so I figure the metaphor is more apt if she’s walking around a prison yard with no guards.

galenrox on March 8, 2009 at 7:40 PM

I can like a person as an individual and detest their political ideology… there is no contradiction in ‘how popular’ someone is and if you think what they are doing is smart. It is when those people I like try to convince me that their ideology is the ‘right one’ that I smile, politely nod, and say ‘no’. That usually trips something off for those on the Left while those on the Right can understand that differences of ideology are not a basis for personal attacks: it is a question of civility.

I have not been ‘moved’ by President Obama, personally, but then no politician really does that for me. I am a notoriously hard sell on political ideology after growing up in a socialist household, analyzing socialism and finding it to have severe conceptual problems. What I do look for are those people who do as they say they will do, that they say what they mean and do not candy coat it or try to distract from their meaning by pointless digressions and personal attacks, and put hard work into that doing to fullfil their meaning and keep their word whole. That is honorable, and even if I disagree with what is said and done, I can recognize the virtue of living one’s life by that standard.

I have noticed grave lacks in what was campaigned on, that it wasn’t meant and what is being done contradicting those things. We do not elect caretakers, nor nannies, nor scolders-in-chief: none of those are the jobs described that those in DC have run for, and yet they want those job titles and not to do the work they said they would do. We now have the first fully complete slacker elected government, and they are just fine with bossing others around to do things, but can’t seem to find time for their actual jobs. That is slacker authoritarian government and we will soon learn what the tolerance for suffering of society is by the words of Jefferson and Franklin. And when it becomes intolerable then we shall see if civility can be remembered by those who think divinity is bestowed by elections.

ajacksonian on March 8, 2009 at 8:02 PM

Jeff Goldstein has made it known at Protein Wisdom and Dan Collins has made it known here that Goldstein would like commenting login privileges here at Hot Air.

What’s the hold up?

Stephen M on March 8, 2009 at 8:17 PM

So Pat, if I get this correctly: You’re a David Frum but you just speak more carefully so libs won’t be able to lie about what you say.

Yeah…that’s going to work. Crazies to the left of me, Cowards everywhere else.

Libs distort no matter what…might as well say what you mean and let the chips fall where they may. Milktoast is just not a great strategy.

aigle on March 8, 2009 at 8:23 PM

First off, Frum is no conservative. The goal of his New Majority is to move the GOP left with elitists like Frum, David Brooks, George Will, Peggy Noonan and Kathleen Parker playing a major role in determining the party’s direction.

Frum, a Canadian by birth, was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. His father was a dentist who made millions in land development and his mother was an executive for the left-wing Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. His wife, Danielle Crittenden, writes for the Huffington Post.

The last thing Frum wants is for the rank and file to have a voice in the affairs of the GOP or to have someone like Sarah Palin (who is more likely to listen to us than the elites) in control.

bw222 on March 8, 2009 at 8:29 PM

Agreed. Mark Steyn is an excellent example. Fun to listen to, brilliant analysis. Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, Dennis Prager, all more effective than Rush in my book.

jgapinoy on March 8, 2009 at 7:50 AM

Ha, I love those guys, too (Steyn especially), but is it Steyn who has had the media’s knickers in a knot? Is it Steyn that Obama has told us not to listen to? Is it Steyn who has had more posts made about him here at Hot Air in the last week than Palin? Please. No one is as effective as Rush. No one.

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on March 8, 2009 at 8:34 PM

Patterico

You do not speak for me. Grow up get some balls and then we will talk. I hope Obama fails so far and so bad that this country experiences the pain for a generation and that liberalism as a political force will be forever disowned.

Many people compare liberalism with the story of cooking a frog. Liberalsim slowly eats away freedom like the frog is slowly cook.

With Obama we have the oppurtunity that the liberals instead of keeping the temp slowly increasing will turn up the heat to a degree that the frog (us) will finally jump out of the water once and for all.

So yes I want the dow at 1,500 I want 20% unemployment, I people to equate massive unemployment and poverty with liberalism. I want that for the sake of my children and my grandchildren. I am prepared to go thru the pain and hardship of a bad economy for my children’s future to ensure their freedom.

To want Obama to succedd, to want his policies to work will while it may sound good at this time give my children nothing but tranny. No pain no gain. So buck up and hope and pray for your childrens future that Obama not only fails but fails spectacularly

unseen on March 8, 2009 at 7:47 AM

Amen. I’m afraid it would take just that for Americans to think liberalism = evil; we have the whole academia and media to counter.

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on March 8, 2009 at 8:37 PM

bw222 on March 8, 2009 at 8:29 PM

Very revealing information; thanks for that. Why the hell does this Frum character get any play here or anywhere on the right side of the sphere?

Reminds me of the phony Governor in Ca… A staunch Republican married to a Kennedy… That sure turned out good for the GOP and Californians.

Keemo on March 8, 2009 at 8:50 PM

Using the word “deranged” to describe liberals as a whole is just silly.

Maybe if you’re a pontificator that’s trying to be diplomatic, you’d choose other words. Somehow “ill-advised” just isn’t strong enough to describe an agenda of unprecedented deficit spending on leftist pork, plus tax hikes, universal health care, card check and carbon sanctions imposed on a seriously fragile economy that is shrinking at a 6 percent rate. If the economy were a puppy, this administration would be jailed for cruelty to animals.

Mark30339 on March 8, 2009 at 9:00 PM

unseen on March 8, 2009 at 7:47 AM

Since your post was long, I just wanted to say what a well written post you did. I so agree.

Amen. I’m afraid it would take just that for Americans to think liberalism = evil; we have the whole academia and media to counter.

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on March 8, 2009 at 8:37 PM

I feel the same way. Liberalism is a evil mental disorder. The most vile and evil of all.

sheebe on March 8, 2009 at 9:19 PM

Actually, this Limbaugh brouhaha is making it clear the clever strategic reason why the Obamacorps rejected (for now) the Fairness Doctrine. Their strategic reasoning is that they WANT Rush around as a foil and a distraction, instead of being a free-speech martyr, while they pursue their Big Socialist policy goals. Once the controversy peters out, probably just in time for the 2010 elections, the Fairness Doctrine will doubtless be resurrected.

kd6rxl on March 8, 2009 at 9:27 PM

Even Maureen Dowd is starting to get it…

The dour prime minister was a blithe spirit despite a mutinous British press corps that was whingeing about the president snubbing the prime minister. First, President Obama sent back the bust of Winston Churchill that Tony Blair lent to W.; then the White House downgraded the “special relationship” to a “special partnership.” The Rose Garden press conference where Mr. Brown was going to stand “podium-to-podium with the Messiah,” as one British scribe dryly put it, was demoted to a “press availability” in the Oval.

Then the president offered a lame present of DVDs — including “Psycho” — in return for the prime minister’s cool gift of a pen holder made from the wood of the Victorian antislave vessel H.M.S. Gannet. Critics wondered if the brusqueness was because, as Mr. Obama wrote in “Dreams From My Father,” his grandfather was beaten by British colonial troops in Kenya. The press also conjured paranoia that the president’s “Lady MacBeth” had been behind the clipped treatment because, as James Delingpole snipped in a Telegraph blog, “Her broad-brush view of history associates Brits with the wicked white global hegemony responsible for the slave trade.”

The British tabloids carped that, while Sarah Brown gave the Obama girls Top Shop dresses and necklaces, a “solipsistic” Michelle merely gave the Brown boys models of Marine One. (Step it up, Desirée).

As blue chips turn into penny stocks, Wall Street seems less like a symbol of America’s macho capitalism and more like that famous Jane Austen character Mrs. Bennet, a flibbertigibbet always anxious about getting richer and her “poor nerves.” The president tried to urge Americans to man-up and buy stocks. In a Times interview on Friday, he further advised us not to “suddenly stuff money” in our mattresses.

Wall Street is weak and jittery, rejecting the vague and laconic courtship of Timothy Geithner. G.M. is verging on bankruptcy, and A.I.G. should be. Americans are confused and fretful. President Obama admitted in his Times interview that the United States is not winning the war in Afghanistan, even as he denied — and then called back 90 minutes later to really deny — that he’s a socialist.

Let’s face it: The only bracing symbol of American strength right now is the image of Michelle Obama’s sculpted biceps. (NYT)

Any image of Michelle Obama is far from a bracing symbol of American strength; that part Maureen needs to work out, or something…

Keemo on March 8, 2009 at 9:27 PM

Jeff Goldstein has made it known at Protein Wisdom and Dan Collins has made it known here that Goldstein would like commenting login privileges here at Hot Air.

What’s the hold up?

Stephen M on March 8, 2009 at 8:17 PM

I can’t speak for HotAir, but it should be noted that commenting registration is only open on rare occasions. If he wanted posting privileges, why hasn’t he registered in the last 3 years?

MadisonConservative on March 8, 2009 at 9:35 PM

I can’t speak for HotAir, but it should be noted that commenting registration is only open on rare occasions. If he wanted posting privileges, why hasn’t he registered in the last 3 years?

MadisonConservative on March 8, 2009 at 9:35 PM

Gee, but the “rare occasions” CAN’T have anything to do with it?

David Block on March 8, 2009 at 10:44 PM

I mean….let’s say Rush said what he said and then…..said this is what we need to do instead. Bam!
Instead all he has is opposition for opposition sake…looks like Rush is tryin to sabotage the only life line out there. –strangelet on March 8, 2009 at 6:10 PM

.
Nonsense!
I’m tempted to concur that you do indeed present yourself here as a “moron”, as another poster has suggested. Perhaps though, you’re not quite terminally “deranged” yet — and was simply not notified of Rush’s antidote ie.(“what we need to do instead”)
.
From the Wall Sreet Journal:
.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123318906638926749.html#printMode
.
Now, may I suggest you take your head out of your soup bowl, wipe your face, go to bed, get up early and try to read for comprehension. Lovingly, a kinder gentler conservative…
.
“Let’s Roll”

On Watch on March 9, 2009 at 1:38 AM

I can’t speak for HotAir, but it should be noted that commenting registration is only open on rare occasions. If he wanted posting privileges, why hasn’t he registered in the last 3 years?

MadisonConservative on March 8, 2009 at 9:35 PM

This should be interesting, no?

TheUnrepentantGeek on March 9, 2009 at 1:58 AM

This should be interesting, no?

TheUnrepentantGeek on March 9, 2009 at 1:58 AM

In the responses to the thread you linked to TheUnrepentantGeek:

Comment by Patterico on 3/9 @ 12:24 am #

I look forward to it as well. Seriously.

And I have a feeling the Hot Air commenters will like Jeff’s message a lot better than they like mine. (I’m not meaning to damn with faint praise, although it’s not a high bar to set.)

Anyway, more speech is good. I’ll be at work when it happens, likely, but I look forward to seeing it when I get home.

Conservatives believe in the marketplace of ideas. I’m going to go link this on my blog now.

Hee Haw =)

Montana on March 9, 2009 at 3:16 AM

Rush not only speaks for me, but I thank God for Rush’s voice, genius, and eloquence. Oh, Ann Coulter speaks for me, too. Aren’t I a devisive person, though, LOL!

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on March 9, 2009 at 5:21 AM

Patterico

You do not speak for me. Grow up get some balls and then we will talk. I hope Obama fails so far and so bad that this country experiences the pain for a generation and that liberalism as a political force will be forever disowned.

Many people compare liberalism with the story of cooking a frog. Liberalsim slowly eats away freedom like the frog is slowly cook.

With Obama we have the oppurtunity that the liberals instead of keeping the temp slowly increasing will turn up the heat to a degree that the frog (us) will finally jump out of the water once and for all.

So yes I want the dow at 1,500 I want 20% unemployment, I people to equate massive unemployment and poverty with liberalism. I want that for the sake of my children and my grandchildren. I am prepared to go thru the pain and hardship of a bad economy for my children’s future to ensure their freedom.

To want Obama to succedd, to want his policies to work will while it may sound good at this time give my children nothing but tranny. No pain no gain. So buck up and hope and pray for your childrens future that Obama not only fails but fails spectacularly

unseen on March 8, 2009 at 7:47 AM

As The Internet Warrior I could not have said this better!

You did a great service to Conservatives, to the core principals, to our real resentment of The Messiah…

Thank you & again, well said!

Mark Garnett on March 9, 2009 at 7:52 AM

Using the word “deranged” to describe liberals as a whole is just silly.

For the rest of us, who actually meet people who disagree with us, the evidence is everywhere.

So let me get this straight, people who may even live a life based on conservative principle, who vote for politicians who openly state they would like to destroy their ability to live such a life and take away the rewards of living such a life, are in fact rational and clear minded. Got it.

peacenprosperity on March 9, 2009 at 10:10 AM

So let me get this straight, people who may even live a life based on conservative principle, who vote for politicians who openly state they would like to destroy their ability to live such a life and take away the rewards of living such a life, are in fact rational and clear minded. Got it.

peacenprosperity on March 9, 2009 at 10:10 AM

There were two available. It was one or the other. Both had a myriad of problems. You’re pegging over half the country as deranged because they chose A over B?

MadisonConservative on March 9, 2009 at 10:20 AM

You’re pegging over half the country as deranged because they chose A over B?

Yep. I’m saying there is a serious disconnect when outwardly rational people can look at barry, harry, nancy, ted, chuck, etc. and say, “Those should be our national leaders.” There is something seriously wrong there (and sadly and mysteriously that includes members of my own family).

peacenprosperity on March 9, 2009 at 1:22 PM

Frum has some good policy ideas but he is seriously wrong in going after Limbaugh. Rush is not the ruin of the GOP.

Let´s say, just for the sake of the argument, that Limbaugh is an unsavory character. The Democrat party is connected to a galaxy of unsavory characters – some of them have been pals of Obama – but it never seems to ruin them. They shrug it off. “Oh, x is a bit over the top, but you gotta understand where he´s coming from. He means well, he´s passionate about helping people, blah blah.”

You know why? Because they have no enemies on the left. But they have useful idiots voices like Frum on the right. They don´t care about his policy ideas, they care about another stick to beat conservatives with. And that is what Frum doesn´t get. I sometimes disagree with Limbaugh, too. But I have no conservative enemies.

el gordo on March 9, 2009 at 2:42 PM

where you Frum? A-holeville USA

JohnBissell on March 9, 2009 at 3:37 PM